Location or View (again...)

[IVC]

The fine point here is that there is a “location or view” in the rear left part of the shooting area of your “illegal” sketch where you can see only target 1 (maybe targets 1 and 2, but not the rest). This is a different “location or view” from the forward left corner where the full array is visible. So, at least target 1 is offered from a different “location or view” and the array doesn’t have to be shot from the left corner of the barrier. 
 

Looks like there isn’t a clear cut good way to describe the intent of the rule without going into some complex analysis and wording. 

[RJH]

47 minutes ago, IVC said:

The fine point here is that there is a “location or view” in the rear left part of the shooting area of your “illegal” sketch where you can see only target 1 (maybe targets 1 and 2, but not the rest). This is a different “location or view” from the forward left corner where the full array is visible. So, at least target 1 is offered from a different “location or view” and the array doesn’t have to be shot from the left corner of the barrier. 
 

Looks like there isn’t a clear cut good way to describe the intent of the rule without going into some complex analysis and wording. 

 

LOL, that is just my poor penmanship. Consider both sides of the illegal stage to look like the right side. I thought the premise would be clear, didn't know i was going to need to get out the graph paper and protractor.......

[MikeBurgess]

30 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

LOL, that is just my poor penmanship. Consider both sides of the illegal stage to look like the right side. I thought the premise would be clear, didn't know i was going to need to get out the graph paper and protractor.......

No your stage is clearly drawn, the problem is on your "illegal" version you can stand at the front corner either side and see 5 targets or move your feet to a new location 6 or 12 inches away and see less than all the targets, we can use the rules as is to prove this is legal but we all know it doesn't pass the smell test. 

 

Let me restate that I do not want anyone to attempt to write rules that define the difference between the two stage layouts because any wording that goes to that extent will have many many unintended consequences that do not make for better stages 

[IVC]

I still have a gut feeling that there must be a way to define a concept of "shooting position" (or similar) where the RJH's sketch would have only two and the stage would be provably illegal instead of just not passing the smell test. 

 

But, as you point out, it would have to be very simple and "uncomplicated" as it would indeed create all sorts of unintended consequences if it was even remotely cumbersome or unclear. I guess we keep the "location or view" wording and use the current cumbersome glossary definitions of "location," "view," "array" and "new view." If it ain't broken...

[broadside72]

4 hours ago, IVC said:

I still have a gut feeling that there must be a way to define a concept of "shooting position" (or similar) where the RJH's sketch would have only two and the stage would be provably illegal instead of just not passing the smell test. 

 

But, as you point out, it would have to be very simple and "uncomplicated" as it would indeed create all sorts of unintended consequences if it was even remotely cumbersome or unclear. I guess we keep the "location or view" wording and use the current cumbersome glossary definitions of "location," "view," "array" and "new view." If it ain't broken...

 

We have arbitrary 3ft rule for holster cant, 10ft rule for NDs, etc. So why not something that defines a 5ft tolerance in location that constitutes a position for example. For instance if you can move 5ft (or some other reasonably arbitrary distance) and still see the same view or set of views as currently defined, then you are in the same shooting position. Contiguous/overlapping 5ft spaces with the same view(s) would constitute a single shooting position.

But that would be too hard probably

[MikeBurgess]

On 9/22/2020 at 2:47 PM, broadside72 said:

 

We have arbitrary 3ft rule for holster cant, 10ft rule for NDs, etc. So why not something that defines a 5ft tolerance in location that constitutes a position for example. For instance if you can move 5ft (or some other reasonably arbitrary distance) and still see the same view or set of views as currently defined, then you are in the same shooting position. Contiguous/overlapping 5ft spaces with the same view(s) would constitute a single shooting position.

But that would be too hard probably

Sure but you get to come to my matches and measure all the possible shooting locations because I don't want to

[ChuckS]

recent posts can be seen here: